§ Viscount CASTLEREAGHasked the Postmaster-General whether the delivery of addressed circulars otherwise than by post is an infringement of the exclusive privilege of the Postmaster-General; whether the delivery of election addresses by hand contravenes these regulations of the Post Office; in what cases was his attention directed to this practice during the General Election; and in what cases did he require an undertaking to refrain from infringing the Post Office monopoly?
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELThe delivery of addressed circulars otherwise than by post is an infringement of the exclusive privilege of the Postmaster-General, unless they are delivered either by the sender or by his servant, or by a special messenger employed by him. The same legal conditions apply to the delivery of 447 Election addresses. There appear to have been only two cases at the last General Election in which representations were made to the Post Office. In one case the representation was made by the Conservative Election Agent at Battersea, but on inquiry being made by the Department it was found that there had clearly been no infringement of the monopoly. In the other case at Tottenham, representations made by recipients of circulars, led to the discovery that their delivery had been entrusted to a company with whom I am in communication on the subject.
§ Viscount CASTLEREAGHWhy was there no infringement in the case at Battersea?
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELBecause the Election Agent employed the messengers direct and not through a company.